DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Flat Creek to Indian Creek 69Kv Santee-Cooper Transmission Line, Chesterfield County, South Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Flat Creek to Indian Creek 69Kv Santee-Cooper Transmission Line, Chesterfield County, South Carolina ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED FLAT CREEK TO INDIAN CREEK 69KV SANTEE-COOPER TRANSMISSION LINE, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA -::::;;;;;;;; :' : ·;1 •. ,! . ' ~ .•. :.q ". ..,., ,.,, .. •. "'"" .;:t~-·:.:~--.:' -'. './1~ :.-:· :~_.. _.'-~_?:·'.=:~ {~ .·\ !·:::·-:\:·.:.·?. '.' ·:'.-_: {': -~ ~:~!·':f:.;-. :~ .. : ·11'.·<.:.- -· .· :i~·······.·.· - .. ···· -:: ~ :_: ::i i CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 227 ©2001 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of tins publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors, publi.her, and project sponsor. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED FLAT CREEK TO INDIAN CREEK 69KV SANTEE-COOPER TRANSMISSION LINE, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared for: Mr. Ken Smoak Sabine and Waters PO Box 1072 Summerville, SC 29483 Prepared by: William B. Barr Chicora Research Contribution 227 Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 • 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29202 803/787-6910 Email: [email protected] August 18, 1997 This report is printed on permanent paper CXl AlBS'flRAC'f This study presents the results of an any National Register properties, sites, districts, or intensive archaeological survey of the proposed objects. An intensive archaeological survey of the Flat Creek - Indian Creek 69 KV transmission line 10,800 foot long corridor failed to identify any corridor about 0.75 mile southeast of the City of archaeological sites or standing structures within Pageland in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. the presumed project area. The purpose of this investigation was to locate any "rchaeological sites which may exist in the corridor The survey, however, was hindered by the an<l evaluate them for their eligibility for inclusion inability to consistently identify a staked or cut on the National Register of Historic Places. corridor. This survey was conducted using the available plan sheet and running transects by Examination of the site files housed at the compass. As a result, Santee-Cooper and their South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and contractors should be especially alert for Anthropology indicated that there were no unrecorded archaeological remains, such as previously recorded sites for the corridor. An concentrations of bricks, historic ceramics, pottery inquiry was made to the South Carolina or arrowheads, and immediately report any such Department of Archives and History for any discoveries to either their project archaeologist or previous architectuaral sutveys or the presence of the State Historic Preservation Office. 'fAJBJLE OJF' CON'fEN'fS List of Figures iv Introduction 1 Natural Environment 5 Background Research 7 Previous Archaeology 7 Prehistoric Synopsis 7 Protohistoric Period 11 Historic Synopsis 11 Field Methods and Results 15 Field Methods 15 Results of the Survey 15 Conclusions 19 References Cited 21 m JLHS'll' OJI? Jl?HGlJRES Figure l. Location of the project area on the 1:100,000 scale Lancaster planimetric map 2 2. Location of the project area on USGS quadrangle maps 3 3. Chronology of the Woodland and Protohistoric Periods in South Carolina 9 4. Mills Atlas 1826 12 5. Civil War Activity in the project area 12 6. Survey corridor running through open swamp 16 7. Wooded area showing the project corridor runnii:tg on the side slope 16 iv llN'fRODUC'fllON This investigation was conducted by Mr. 25, was accepted on July 30, 1997. William B. Barr of Chicora Foundation, Inc. for Mr. Ken Smoak of Sabine and Waters. The Ms. Rachel Campo examined the site files proposed 10,800-foot long transmission line of the S. C. Institute of Archaeology and corridor is located in northwestern Chesterfield Anthropology and no sites had been previously County, about 0.75 miles southeast of the town of identified on the tract. A project area map was Pageland (Figures 1 and 2). faxed to Dr. Tracy Powers of the S. C. Historic Preservation Office on August 18, 1997, with a The survey corridor begins at Station request for information on any previous 83+53 where it separates from an existing architectural surveys or the presence of any transmission line about 830 feet west of an existing National Register sites, districts, properties, or substation on S-683. From this existing corridor the objects in the project area. We have not yet survey line runs north-northwest for about 3,900 received a response to our inquiry. feet before it turns to the northwest and continues for an additional 4,100 feet. From this point it runs The field investigations were undertaken almost due north for nearly 2,500 feet before by Chicora Research Archaeologist Mr. William B. turning to the east and terminating at the proposed Barr and archaeologist technicians Mr. John D. substation location southeast of the intersection of Hamer and Ms. Bonnie Frick on August 11-12, S-440 and SC Highway 151. Throughout the 1997. The report preparation took place at length the proposed corridor is no wider than 70 Chicora Foundation's offices in Columbia on feet. August 13, 1997. Topography in the corridor area consists of gently to moderately rolling hills, with steep slopes adjacent to an intermittent stream. Much of the corridor was a grassed pasture. Vegetation elsewhere consisted of oak-pine forest with a heavy to dense understory of vegetation. A large portion of the corridor is swamp. The proposed undertaking will require the clearing and grubbing of the project corridor. Further impact to any archaeological resources will include the actual installation of the metal towers or poles, as well as subsequent maintenance. Combined, these activities have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources if such resources are within the affected portion of the tract. This study is intended to provide a detailed explanation of the archaeological survey of the Flat Creek to Indian Creek 69 kV transmission line proposed by Santee-Cooper. Chicora received a request for a budgetary proposal for an intensive survey on July 24, 1997. Our proposal, dated July 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE FLAT CREEK TO INDIAN CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE Figure l. Location of the project area·;;,; the 1:100,000 scale Lancaster planimetric map. 2 INTRODUCTION Figure 2. Location of the project area on the 1968 Jefferson NE, Jefferson, Pageland and Hornsboro 7 5 USGS topographic maps. 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE FLAT CREEK TO INDIAN CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE 4 NATURAJL lENVll.RONMlENT Chesterfield County is situated in the Fall smaller species such as holly and leatheiwood. Line and Sand Hills area of South Carolina. It is Herbaceous flora is generally varied, but includes bounded to the north by Union County, North n1any species of the xeric woodlands as well as Carolina, to the east by Marlboro County, South those more prevaleni in the piedmont (Barry Carolina and the Great Pee Dee River, to the 1980:138-140). south by Darlington County, South Carolina and to the west by Lancaster and Kershaw counties, South Elevations in the county range from about Carolina as well as Lynches River. The western 75 feet above sea level at the Pee Dee River to half of the county is drained by Lynches River about 725 feet above sea level near the town of while the eastern half is drained by the Great Pee Pageland (Morton 1995). The survey corridor is Dee. The project area itself is drained by Black characterized by elevations ranging from about 500 Creek and one of its tributaries, which both feed to 580 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). There into Lynches River in Darlington County. are rolling hills throughout the area, but in general the topography slightly drops from S.C. 207 The Fall Line Sandhills lie 10 a northward. From the eastwardly turn the corridor discontinuous belt 5 to 15 miles wide through the climbs to a high point just beyond S-486 and then center of the Midlands, paralleling the coast. Fall begins a fairly rapid descent to Black Creek. From I ,ine topography is formed by the vigorous erosion there it follows dissected side slopes eastwardly and of strean1s that pass from the piedmont bedrock to southerly to the terminus. the loose sands of the coastal plain. The streams rapidly descend to form shoals in major rivers or The soils in Chesterfield County were waterfalls on small streams (Barry 1980:97). formed in material weathered from rock and in sediment that was deposited by the ocean, by Cooke (1936) has divided the sandhills streams, or successively by both. In general, the into the Aiken Plateau, the Congaree Sand Hills, underlying rocks are crystalline and metamorphic the Richland Sand Hills, and the High Hills of the rocks such as Carolina Slate, gneiss, schist, and Santee. The Richland Red Hills and the High granite. Mills describes the soils as being poor for Hills of the Santee are both similar in size and cultivation. He states: morphology. These two groups are considered the "Red Sand Hills" while the remaining groups are [a] large proportion of this district considered the "White Sand Hills" (Colquhoun presents pine barren sand hills, 1965 ). The vegetation in the Red Sand Hills not worth cultivation, except when reflects a more mesic climate while the White Sand intersected by streams; where a Hills are more xeric. The project area is located in little good soil is found. Along the Fall Line region, with the Red Sand Hills just the northern boundary the land east of the area. inclines towards the clayey and stony kind, and present a rolling In this region, the dominant vegetation is surface. The river lands are of a the white oak which is either dominant itself or in rich soil, as also those bordering combination with loblolly pine. Other overstory the creeks, in proportion to their trees consist of sweetgum, beech, southern red oak, extent (Mills 1972[1826]:497).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download .Pdf
    GEOLOGY OF THE PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN NEAR PAGELAND, SOUTH CAROLINA AND WADESBORO, NORTH CAROLINA By HENRY BELL III1 J. ROBERT BUTLER2 DAVID E. HOWELL3 WALTER H. WHEELER2 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. 22092 2 Dept. of Geology, Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27214 3 Division of Geology, South Carolina State Development Board, Harbison Forest Road, Columbia, S. C. 29210 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . .. .. 1 Geologic studies. .. .. 1 Acknowledgements . .. .. 1 METAMORPHIC ROCKS . .. .. 2 GRANITE PLUTONS. .. .. 2 Liberty Hill pluton. .. .. 3 Pageland pluton . .. .. 3 Lilesville pluton. .. .. 3 Gabbro .. .. .. 4 TRIASSIC BASINS. .. .. 4 MESOZOIC DIABASE DIKES . .. .. 5 COASTAL PLAIN FORMATIONS. .. .. 5 Middendorf Formation. .. .. 5 Citronelle Formation . .. .. 6 Pinehurst Formation. .. .. 6 Brandywine Formation . .. .. 7 FIELD TRIP LOG FOR FIRST DAY . .. .. 7 FIELD TRIP LOG FOR SECOND DAY. .. .. 13 REFERENCES. .. .. .. 15 ILLUSTRATIONS Geologic map . .. .. .download Field trip routs . .. .. .. .download Sketch map of Hiale gold mine area . .. .. 10 Sketch of east wall of borrow pit in northern part of Haile mine area. 11 CAROLINA GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Guidebook for 1974 Annual Meeting Pages 1-16 GEOLOGY OF THE PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN NEAR PAGELAND, SOUTH CAROLINA AND WADESBORO, NORTH CAROLINA Henry Bell III U.S. Geological Survey Reston, Va. 22092 J. Robert Butler Dept. of Geology Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27214 David E. Howell Division of Geology, South Carolina State Development Board Harbison Forest Road, Columbia, S. C. 29210 Walther H. Wheele Dept. of Geology Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27214 INTRODUCTION information; these references are listed at appropriate places in the following text. Butler and Ragland (1969) and Fulla- Northeastern South Carolina and the adjacent part of gar (1971) studied the petrology and age relationships of North Carolina is a particularly good area for geologic field some of the intrusive rocks of this area.
    [Show full text]
  • • • • REVIEW and APPROVAL S CAROLINA SANDHILLS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUG E Mcbee, South Carolina ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPOR T Ca
    REVIEW AND APPROVAL S • CAROLINA SANDHILLS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUG E McBee, South Carolina • ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1997 • Refuge Manager Date Refuge Supervisor Review Date Regio al Office Approval / Date • • CAROLINA SANDHILLS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUG E McBee, South Carolin a • ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1997 • U . S . Department of the Interio r Fish and Wiidlife Servic e National Wildlife Refuge System • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. .. .. .... ..... .. ... ...... .i A. HIGHLIGHTS 1 B . CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 1 C . LAND ACQUISITION 2 1. Fee Title 2 2. Easements 2 3. Other Nothing to Report D. PLANNIN G • 1. Master Plan Nothing to Report 2. Management Plan Nothing to Report 3. Public Participation 2 4. Compliance w/Environmental & Cultural Resources Mandates 2 5. Research and Investigations 3 6. Other Nothing to Report E . ADMINISTRATIO N 1. Personnel 7 2. Youth Programs 1 0 3. Other Manpower Programs Nothing to Report 4. Volunteer Programs 1 0 5. Funding 1 1 6. Safety 1 4 7. Technical Assistance 1 4 8. Other 14 • F . HABITAT MANAGEMEN T 1. General 1 5 2. Wetlands 1 5 3. Forests 1 6 4. Croplands 1 8 5. Grasslands 1 9 6. Other Habitats - Fields Nothing to Report 7. Grazing Nothing to Report 8. Haying Nothing to Report 9. Fire Management 1 9 10. Pest Control 20 11. Water Rights Nothing to Report 12. Wilderness and Special Areas 20 13. WPA Easement Monitoring Nothing to Report • • TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont'd Page G . WILDLIFE 1. Wildlife Diversity 20 2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species 20 3. Waterfowl 22 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Conditions: Pee Dee River Basin
    WATERSHED CONDITIONS: PEE DEE RIVER BASIN Broad Upper Savannah Lynches SANTEE Pee Dee Catawba- Saluda Wateree Little SA Pee Dee V ANN Congaree PEE DEE Waccamaw Black AH Santee Lower Edisto Savannah ACE Ashley- VIRGINI A Cooper Combahee- Coosawhatchie NO RT H C A R OLI NA Pee Dee Santee basin basin SOUTH Savannah CA RO LI NA basin ACE GEORGIA basin South Carolina Water Assessment 5-1 PEE DEE RIVER SUBBASIN Marion, and Cheraw saw population declines of 0.5 to 8.1 percent between 1990 and 2000. The 2005 per capita income in the subbasin counties ranged from a low of $20,005 in Williamsburg County to $30,399 in sixth-ranked Georgetown County. The 2005 per capita income in South Carolina averaged $28,285. Median household income for 1999 ranged from $28,205 in Williamsburg County to $35,312 in Georgetown County, all below the State median household income of $37,082. The 2000 annual-average employment of non- agricultural wage and salary workers in the subbasin’s counties was about 130,000. The distribution by type of employment included management, professional, and related, 26 percent; production, transportation, and materials moving, 25 percent; sales and office, 24 percent; service, 14 percent; and construction, extraction, and maintenance, 11 percent. PEE DEE RIVER SUBBASIN In the sectors of manufacturing, mining, and public utilities, the combined annual product value from the The Pee Dee River subbasin extends from the North subbasin counties exceeded $8 billion in 1997. Major Carolina border southeast to Winyah Bay and encompasses employers in those counties included Sonoco Products, parts of eight South Carolina counties, including most Wellman Incorporated, and Galey and Lord.
    [Show full text]
  • Life in the Pee Dee: Prehistoric and Historic Research on the Roche Carolina Tract, Florence County, South Carolina
    LIFE IN THE PEE DEE: PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC RESEARCH ON THE ROCHE CAROLINA TRACT, FLORENCE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA CHICORA FOUNDATION RESEARCH SERIES 39 Front Cover: One of the most interesting artifacts from Chicora's excavations at 38FL240 is this small, stamped brass "circus medallion." The disk shows the profile of an elephant, surrounded by the announcement that the "GREAT EASTERN MENAGERIE MUSEUM AVIARY CIRCUS AND BALLOON SHOW IS COMING." The Great Eastern Circus was only in operation from 1872 through 1874, under the direction of Andrew Haight, who was known as "Slippery Elm" Haight, due to his unsavory business practices. The Circus featured a young elephant named "Bismark" -- probably the very one shown on this medallion. In 1873 the Circus came to Florence, South Carolina, stopping for only two days -- October 18 and 19 -- on its round through the South. It is likely that this brass token was an advertisement for the circus. In this case it was saved, probably by the child of a tenant farmer, and worn as a constant reminder of Bismark, and a truly unusual event for the small, sleepy town of Florence. LIFE IN THE PEE DEE: PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC RESEARCH ON THE ROCHE CAROLINA TRACT, FLORENCE COUN1Y, SOUTH CAROLINA Research Series 39 Michael Trinkley Debi Hacker Natalie Adams Chicora Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 8664 • 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29202 803/787-6910 Prepared For: Roche Carolina, Inc. Nutley, New Jersey September 1993 ISSN 0082-2041 Library of Congress Cataloging -in -Publication Data Trinkley, Michael. Life in the Pee Dee: prehistoric and historic research on the Roche Carolina tract, Florence County, South Carolina / Michael Trinkley, Debi Hacker, Natalie Adams.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Sites by Clint Johnson
    Clover Lake Wylie Smyrna Filbert Fort Mill Hickory Grove York Sharon Rock Hill 97 321 Jonesville McConnells 21 72 521 176 Lockhart Pageland 215 9 Cheraw Union Lancaster Chesterfield 9 151 Chester Richburg Elgin Heath Springs 1 Jefferson Kershaw Carlisle Blackstock Great Falls 72 Woodward 321 77 Blair McBee Liberty Hill 341 215 Winnsboro 97 601 Bethune York Union Chester Monticello Lancaster Chesterfield Fairfield Kershaw Ridgeway Camden Lugof f 20 521 Boykin This brochure is a work-in-progress, and will be updated regularly. Therefore feedback and additional information on these and any other sites related to this topic in the Olde English District are welcomed. For further information, contact: Olde English District Tourism Commission 3200 Commerce Drive, Suite A Richburg, South Carolina 29729 803-789-7076 or 1-800-968-5909 • Fax: 803-789-7077 www.OldeEnglishDistrict.com email: [email protected] Printed in USA 6/12 50M army, which was trapped in Petersburg, Virginia, by Union General Ulysses S. Grant. Still, Sherman wanted to be careful. He was deep in hostile territory, hundreds of miles from supplies and any other Union forces. He had to keep the Confederates guessing what he would do next. After leaving Columbia, Sherman’s next objective was either (The following material is excerpted from the book, Touring the Raleigh or Goldsboro in northeast North Carolina. However, to keep Carolinas’ Civil War Sites by Clint Johnson. Used with permission.) Confederates in North Carolina from concentrating their forces in the northeast part of the state, he decided to “feint” directly north of Sherman’s Feint Tour Columbia in the direction of Charlotte, North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Survey of the Jordan/F.T. Williams Tract, Chesterfield County, South Carolina
    CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF THE JORDAN/F.T. WILLIAMS TRACT, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 481 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF THE JORDAN/F.T. WILLIAMS TRACT, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared By: Michael Trinkley, Ph.D., RPA and Nicole Southerland Prepared For: Mr. Jason Conner Hedrick Industries 7 Yorkshire Street-Suite 102 Asheville, NC 28803 CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 481 Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 Columbia, SC 29202-8664 803/787-6910 www.chicora.org November 15, 2007 This report is printed on permanent paper ∞ ©2007 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors, publisher, and project sponsor. ABSTRACT This study reports on an intensive cultural The archaeological survey of the tract resources survey of an approximately 160 acre incorporated shovel testing at 100-foot intervals tract of land in the western portion of Chesterfield along transects placed at 100-foot along the County, near the city of Pageland, South Carolina. northern boundary of the tract. All shovel test fill The work was conducted to assist Hedrick was screened through ¼-inch mesh and the shovel Industries in complying with Section 106 of the tests were backfilled at the completion of the National Historic Preservation Act and the study. A total of 691 shovel tests were excavated regulations codified in 36CFR800.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Statewide Rail Plan Update
    SOUTH CAROLINA STATEWIDE RAIL PLAN UPDATE 2020 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 November 19, 2020 Mr. Doug Frate Intermodal and Freight Programs South Carolina Department of Transportation 955 Park Street Columbia, SC 29202 Dear Mr. Frate, The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has completed its review of the 2020 South Carolina State Rail Plan (also referred to as the State Rail Plan or SRP). FRA’s review of the SRP found that it contained the required elements in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 22705 and FRA’s 2013 State Rail Plan Guidance. This letter serves as notice that FRA formally accepts the SRP. While FRA finds that the SRP meets the minimum requirements, FRA recommends addressing the following points in future updates of the SRP: • Consider reorganizing section 3.2.1 Current Southeastern Rail Activity to clarify the history of the rail governance bodies in the Southeast and how they work together. Pages 81-83 presents the relevant information, but the chronology of the governance bodies and their individual roles within the Southeast are unclear. • In section 3.4 on page 87 consider clarifying that SCDOT participated in the Southeast Regional Rail Plan and acted as a lead stakeholder. Also, clarify the purpose of the study as the establishment of a long-term vision for the implementation and management of passenger rail in the Southeast. Consider discussing the role of the SE Plan in the development of SCDOT’s SRP and in the work underway through the Southeast Corridor Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Pee Dee Capacity Use Area: 2020 Groundwater Evaluation Report
    Pee Dee Capacity Use Area: 2020 Groundwater Evaluation Report Prepared by: Lance Foxworth, Hydrogeologist Andrea Hughes, PhD., Hydrogeologist Bureau of Water Dr. James Michael Marcus, Chief Water Monitoring, Assessment, and Protection Division Robert Devlin, Director Water Quantity Permitting Section Alex Butler, Manager Technical Report Number: 008-2020 February 2020 Page Intentionally Left Blank Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Regulatory History .................................................................................................................................... 3 Hydrogeologic Framework ............................................................................................................................ 5 Aquifers ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Recharge Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Surface Water ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Groundwater Trends ................................................................................................................................... 10 Current Groundwater Demand ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Resident of Horry County, South Carolina Since the Age of 4, Tom Rice Has a Deep‐Rooted Connection to the Grand Strand and Pee Dee Areas
    A resident of Horry County, South Carolina since the age of 4, Tom Rice has a deep‐rooted connection to the Grand Strand and Pee Dee areas. Tom entered Congress with a commitment to make the United States as competitive as possible. From our country’s energy policies to tax rates, Tom has spent his time in Congress advocating for common‐sense reforms to spur economic development and restore America’s competitive edge in the world. Tom serves on the Ways and Means Committee where he uses his experience as an accountant and knowledge as a businessman to implement fiscally responsible policy that makes America competitive in the world. He serves on the Trade and Select Revenue Measures Subcommittees. Before being elected to Congress, Tom earned both his master’s degree in accounting and his juris doctor from the University of South Carolina. After completing his degrees, Tom worked for the accounting and consulting firm, Deloitte & Touche, in Charlotte and earned his CPA certificate. In 1985, Tom returned to his hometown of Myrtle Beach to practice tax law with the Van Osdell Law Firm, and in 1997 he established his own practice, the Rice & MacDonald Law Firm. Tom has been the recipient of numerous certificates and awards for his professional achievements. In 1994 he was awarded, and continues to hold, an AV (Preeminent) legal rating by Martindale Hubble. From 1994 until 2009, he was certified by the Supreme Court of South Carolina as a specialist in Tax Law, Estate Planning, and Probate Law, and has been included in Best Lawyers in America since 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Indian Studies, Vol. 30
    STUDIES Volume XXX October, 1978 The Sou them Indian Studies was established in April, 1949, as a medium of publication and discussion of information pertaining to the life and customs of tht> Indians in the Southern slates, both prehistoric and hi~toric. Subscription is by membership in the North Carolina Archaeological Society. PUBLISHED by THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NORTH CAROLINA and THE RESEARCH LABORATORIES OF ANTHROPOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA Box 561 Chapel Hill Volume XXX October 1978 CONTENTS Probable Pee Dee Phase Burials from Socvs, Marlboro County, South Carolina ............ S. Homes Hogue and Michael Trinkley Archaeological Testing at 9Ri(DOT)3: A Late Archaic Camp Site in the Central Savannah River Valley ............ .................... William R. Bowen Probable Pee Dee Phase Burials From Socvs, Marlboro County, South Carolina S. Homes Hogue Michael Trinkley Since the early 1950's the Research Laboratories of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina have conducted intermittent surveys inChes­ terfield and Marlboro Counties, South Carolina to seek information on the villages of the historic Sara or Cheraw Indians, known to have been in South Carolina about 1716 (Lewis 1951,, Wilson 1981). Site SoCV8 was originally recorded in May 1958 during one such brief survey and at that early stage of research the site was felt to represent a mixing of "Siouan elements with [those from the] Pee Dee time period" (Stanley South, notes on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology). The site is situated in Marlboro County, about 1.5 miles from Cheraw on a sandy ridge parallel the Pee Dee River. Artifact scatter is found over about four acres with two apparent concentrations, both adjacent to the woodsline (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina State Assessment
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Office of Community Services 11 1011 Community Services Block Grant Program South Carolina State Assessment On-Site Review Final March 15 - 19, 2010 South Carolina State Assessment Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 State Assessment Authority……………………………………………………………... 1 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………….. 2 II. ASSESSMENT AND FINDINGS…………………………………………………....... 3 • FISCAL AND GOVERNANCE OPERATIONS…………….. 3 Administrative Monitoring and Accountability………………………………. 4 Financial Monitoring and Accountability…………………………………….. 4 OMB Circular A-133………..………………………………………………... 6 Recapture and Redistribution…………………….…………………………… 7 Carryover Balance……………………………………………………………. 7 Public Hearings……………………………………………………………….. 8 Tripartite Boards……………………………………………………………… 8 Additional Administrative or Fiscal Operations Findings……………………. 9 • PROGRAM OPERATIONS………………………………………... 9 Employment Programs………………………………………………………... 12 Education Programs…………………………………………………………... 12 Housing Programs…………………………………………………………….. 12 Emergency Services Programs………………………………………………... 13 Nutrition Programs.……………………………………………….................... 13 Self-Sufficiency Programs....…………………………………………………. 13 Health Programs.……………………………………………………………… 14 Income Management Programs………………………………………………. 14 Linkages………………………………………………………………………. 14 Programs for Youth and Seniors……………………………………………… 15 Local Agency Uses of FY 2007 CSBG Funds ……………………………….. 16 Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) System………..
    [Show full text]
  • Pee Dee Regional Transit Plan, May 2008
    Regional Transit & Coordination Plan PEE DEE REGION Prepared for: Prepared by: November 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Community Summary ............................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Population Trends ...................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Economic Summary ................................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Income ....................................................................................................................... 7 2. Existing Transit in the Pee Dee Region ............................................................................................... 8 2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Existing Transit Services .......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Pee Dee Regional Transportation Authority (PDRTA) ................................................ 8 2.3 Regional Trends and Summary ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]